May the learning of Daf Yomi be a zchus for his neshamah and may his soul find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of Life.He should be a melitz yoshar for his entire family and Klal Yisroel.

In his newest sefer Nasiach B'chukecha, Rabbi Avi Lebowitz (Rosh Kollel of the Palo Alto Kollel - Jewish Study Network) culls from the many works of the Rishonim and Gedolei Achronim to expound upon, elucidate and analyze the principles discussed by the Chayei Adam. His commentary are written both as footnotes and as additions of specific rules within each category.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

The Mishna states that at the beginning of six months, messengers would be sent out to notify the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. They were sent out in the month of Nissan because of the festival of Pesach. At the beginning of Av, they were sent out because of the fast. Messengers were sent in the month of Elul on the account of Rosh Hashanah. They were sent out during Tishrei because of Yom Kippur and Sukkos. Messengers were sent out during Kislev because of Chanukah and during Adar because of Purim.

A question is brought down in the sefer Poseach Shaar. If messengers were required in the months of Kislev and Adar because of Chanukah and Purim, shouldn't there be a halacha that in the faraway places, where the messengers cannot reach in due time, that there should be an extra day of Chanukah and Purim because of the doubt as to the correct day? this is indeed the reason why the other festivals have an extra day. It would emerge that there should be nine days of chanukah and two days of Purim nowadays in the Diaspora.

Abudraham writes that this is only required on the Biblical festivals but we do not have this stringency on Chanukah and Purim which is only Rabbinic.

The Mordechai states that in the Meggilah it is written "V'lo yaavor," the meggilah should not berecited on any other day but the fourteenth of Adar. Sefer Dovev Meisharim (1:15) asks on this that the verse would only answer why the meggilah is not recited on any other day but there should be an extra day for all the other obligations of Purim.

Minchas Chinuch writes that in the days that Rosh Chodesh was determined through the witnesses and Beis Din, there actually was nine days of Chanukah in the faraway places. He states further that in the future when the Beis Hamikdosh will be built, there will also be nine days. Nowadays, that we are experts in the correct days of the month, there is no necessity to institute an extra day since it is only Rabbinic.

We can answer the famous question of the Beis Yosef according to the Minchas Chinuch. He asks that there should be seven days of Chanukah and not eight because the miracle of the oil was only for seven days. We can answer that the reason there is an eighth day is because of the doubt as to when Rosh Chodesh was.

The Mishna states that at the beginning of six months, messengers would be sent out to notify the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. They were sent out in the month of Nissan because of the festival of Pesach. At the beginning of Av, they were sent out because of the fast. Messengers were sent in the month of Elul on the account of Rosh Hashanah. They were sent out during Tishrei because of Yom Kippur and Sukkos. Messengers were sent out during Kislev because of Chanukah and during Adar because of Purim.

Pnei Yehoshua questions the necessity of the messengers at all according to the opinion of those Tanaim who maintain that there is always a four day difference between the day that the festival falls out in one year and the day that the festival occurs in the following year. Since it is known which month will be thirty days and which month will be twenty-nine days, what is the purpose of the messengers? He answers that even according to that viewpoint, there are times that Beis Din will be forced to deviate from the regular cycle and change the amount of days in the month due to the seasons or because of a leap year. It is therefore still necessary to send out the messengers in the beginning of every month.

Reb Leib Mallin answers this question differently with a novel approach. There is a halacha based on pesukim in the Torah that Rosh Chodesh can only be established through Beis Din. There is a secondary halacha, based on that, which teaches us that informing the public when Rosh Chodesh was also must be accomplished through Beis Din . He learns this from the language of the Ranbam in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (1:7). It emerges that even if it is known precisely when Rosh Chodesh was, there is nevertheless an obligation for Beis Din to notify the public.

The Mishnah lists six months for which messengers were sent out – for reasons ranging from “major holidays” like Pesach & Sukkos to “minor holidays” like Chanukah. The Gemara then asks about Tammuz & Teves since they have minor fasts, and the conclusion is that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash, those were only optional. But what about Shevat? We learned not that long ago that Tu B’Shevat is the new year for the trees (for maaser purposes, I believe). So wouldn’t people need to know exactly when Tu B’Shevat is so that they handle their trees properly? Tithing the crops is a Biblical obligation, so I would think that this would take even higher precedence than say Kislev.

The Gemara states that on Chanukah there is a requirement to publicize the miracle that occurred regarding the lighting of the menorah in the Bais HaMikdash. The Halacha is that if one only has sufficient oil or candles to light either the Shabbos candles or the Chanukah candles, he should light Shabbos candles as shalom bayis, domestic harmony, is more important than publicizing the miracle of Chanukah. We see from here the importance of being in a state of peace on Shabbos. It is said lo sevaaru eish bechol moshvoseichem beyom HaShabbos, you shall not kindle fire in any of your dwellings on the Shabbos day. The sefarim write that this alludes to the idea that one should not become angry on Shabbos, as fire denotes anger. Thus when one kindles the Shabbos and Chanukah lights, he should remember that most important is that peace and tranquility should reign in the home.

OVERTURNING A DECREEThe Gemora states that it is actually a dispute among the Tanaim if an individual’s decree can be reversed through repentance or prayer. Rabbi Meir used to say that if there were two people that were sick with an indistinguishable illness and one patient recovered and the other did not, how can this be explained? He answered that one prayed a complete prayer and was therefore answered and the other did not. Rabbi Elozar answers that one case was before the decree was issued and the other was afterwards. Rabbi Yitzchak states that calling out to Hashem will always be helpful even after the decree was issued. Rabbah bar Avuha says that during the Ten Days of Repentance between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Hashem is always available to listen to an individual crying out to Him and will overturn an evil decree previously issued.(18a)DECREE ON A COMMUNITY The Gemora states that a decree against a community cannot be overturned if it is accompanied with an oath but a decree that does not have an oath with it can be overturned. The Gemora cites Scriptural references to this. Rava states that if one studies Torah, the decree can be annulled somewhat. Abaye says that it can be annulled somewhat if one studies Torah and performs acts of kindness.(18a)

JUDGED SINGLE FILE The Mishna had stated that on Rosh Hashanah, the entire world passes in front of Hashem to be judged like “bnei maron.” The Gemora cites three opinions for the meaning of “bnei maron.” One explanation is that the people being judged are compared to sheep passing through a narrow gate as they are being counted for the tithing. Rish Lakish states that the analogy is to people traveling down a narrow path that has a sharp drop on both sides. Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that they are compared to the soldiers of Dovid as they were being counted single file as they prepared for battle. The Gemora concludes that even though they pass before Hashem in single file, they are judged simultaneously. (18a)

MESSENGERS SENT OUT The Mishna states that at the beginning of six months, messengers would be sent out to notify the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. They were sent out in the month of Nissan because of the festival of Pesach. At the beginning of Av, they were sent out because of the fast. Messengers were sent in the month of Elul on the account of Rosh Hashanah. They were sent out during Tishrei because of Yom Kippur and Sukkos. Messengers were sent out during Kislev because of Chanukah and during Adar because of Purim. During the times that the Beis Hamikdosh was standing, they would send out messengers because of Pesach Sheini (for those that were not able to bring the Korban Pesach on Pesach). (18a)

VOLUNTARY FASTS The Gemora questions as to why there were no messengers sent out for Tammuz and Teves due to the fast days contained in those months. The Gemora answers that these fasts were not mandatory and therefore they didn’t bother sending out messengers in those months. The fast of the Ninth of Av, on the other hand, was obligatory and therefore messengers were sent out in the beginning of Av. (18a – 18b)

FOUR FASTS The Gemora cites a verse in Zecharya “The fast of the fourth, the fast of the fifth, the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth will be to the House of Yehudah for joy and for happiness.” Rabbi Akiva understands the passuk as follows: “The fast of the fourth” is referring to the ninth of Tammuz since on that day the city of Yerushalayim was breached and it is called the “fourth” since Tammuz is the fourth month from Nissan. “The fast of the fifth” is referring to the Ninth of Av since on that day the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed and it is called the “fifth” since Av is the fifth month from Nissan. “The fast of the seventh” is referring to the Third of Tishrei since on that day Gedalya was murdered and it is called the “seventh” since Tishrei is the seventh month from Nissan. “The fast of the tenth” is referring to the Tenth of Teves since on that day the Babylonian King began to surround Yerushalayim and it is called the “tenth” since Teves is the tenth month from Nissan. (18b)

Friday, December 22, 2006

The Gemora states that Hashem shows compassion before a person sins and afterwards, providing that the sinner repents.

The Rosh questions the necessity for Hashem's mercy before the person commits a transgression.

His first answer is that that Hashem's compassion is required even though He knows that the person will ultimately sin, nonetheless justice is not issued until the person actually transgresses.

The Rosh offers an alternative answer that this is referring specifically to the sin of idolatry where Hashem views a person's thoughts as if he committed an action as the Gemora in Kiddushin proves from a passuk. Hashem has mercy on the person and does not administer punishment until he actually worships other gods and then he will be punished for the thoughts as well.

Rav Meir Bergman comments that with the second answer of the Rosh, we can understand a difference between the language of the tefila of Moshe Rabbeinu by the sin of the golden calf and by the sin of the spies. Moshe prays for forgiveness on behalf of Klal Yisroel for their sin with the calf and he cries out "Hashem, Hashem!" When he prays by the sin of the spies, he calls out Hashem's name only once. It is by a sin of idolatry, such as the golden calf, that Hashem's compassion is required even before the sin is committed.

The Korban Nesanel asks on the Rosh from a Gemora in Chulin where it is evident that Hashem punishes for the thoughts of idolatry even if the person did not actually serve any idols.

Harav Elyashiv Shlita answers that the Rosh is discussing a case regarding a person who is intending in the very near future to commit idolatry. Hashem does not administer justice on such thoughts until after the transgression is not committed. The Gemora in Chulin is referring to a person who accepts another god in his mind. This is regarded as idolatry and the person can be punished even without performing an action.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Why is man judged on the first of Tishrei? The Ran explains that people are judged on Rosh Hashana since that is the day that the world was created according to Rabbi Eliezer. He offers a different reason according to Rabbi Yehoshua who maintains that the world was created in Nissan. Hashem wanted that Klal Yisroel should be judged favorably and therefore the first of Tishrei was chosen as the Day of Judgment since it is close to Yom Kippur which is the day that has been designated for forgiveness and atonement for all future generations.

The Maharsha asks that the Ran didn’t explain completely why the judgment begins ten days prior to Yom Kippur. The Maharsha writes that since we learned previously that Hashem decreed that Sara, Rochel and Leah will bear children and this was the day that Yosef was released from prison, it is fitting that Rosh Hashana was designated to be the Day of Judgment.

The Tzlach answers that Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that Hashem thought about creating the world in Tishrei but he didn’t actually create it until Nissan. The reason the first of Tishrei was chosen over Nissan is because the first of Tishrei is close to Yom Kippur which is the day designated for forgiveness.

Abudraham writes in the name of the Rambam that Hashem is not like a regular king. A human king judges his friends when he is in a good mood and judges his enemy when he is angry. Hashem judges the entire world in the month of Tisrei which is a time of apeasement due to all the mitzvos and festivals contained in that month.

Meshech Chochma in Parshas Emor cites a Medrash that Rosh Hashana is immediately after the harvest season indicating that it is in the merit of the mitzvos of sustaining and providing the poor from one's grain even without checking the poor person’s credentials (they didn't need a green card, Hashem provides life to all even if they might not deserve it.

The Mishna states that there are four occasions in the year that the world is judged. On Pesach for the grain, on Shavuos for the fruits of the tree, on Rosh Hashanah all the people pass before Hashem and on Sukkos there is a judgment on water.The commentators ask that if man is judged on Rosh Hashana, it would be assumed that the judgment includes anything which affects him. What is the necessity to have other days to judge how much rain will fall on his field or how well his grain will grow when the judgment for this was issued on Rosh Hashana?The Ran answers that on the other three junctures of the year, the world as a whole is judged as to how much rain will fall in the entire world and how much grain will all field produce. On Rosh Hashana, each person is judged individually as to what percentage of the world's rain or grain will affect him.We recite in the tefilos on Rosh Hashana "Who will have a year of famine and who will merit a plentiful year?" This prayer would seem to indicate that there is a specific judgment regarding grain or rain to every person. The Ritva writes in the name of Rabbeinu Tam that this tefillah can be referring to the hunger pangs that a person can feel when he would eat and remain unsatisfied. We are praying that the food with which we have should be able to sustain us.

The Gemara states that Rabbi Yitzchak said that one is obligated to visit his teacher during the festival. This is derived from the verse that states "Why are you going to him today? It is neither a New Moon nor a Shabbos!" This verse was said regarding the woman from Shuneim, who Elisha had blessed with a child and then the child became ill and died. When the woman told her husband that she was returning to Elisha to inform him of the child’s demise, her husband, unaware of what had occurred, inquired why she was going to Elisha. The Gemara states that the verse implies that on the New Moon and on Shabbos one is obligated to visit his teacher.

A question is asked as to why the halacha of visiting one's Rebbe on a Yom Tov is not brought down in Shulchan Aruch. The Noda Beyahuda answers that this was only in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh when there was a mitzva of aliyah l'regel, however after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh, the mitzva of going to your Rebbe also became batel. He explains that the Sages did not want that the honor of the student (Talmid chochom) should be greater than that of the Rav (Shechina).

There are those that ask on the Noda Beyehuda is from the Gemora in Sukkah 27 and other Gemoros where we see that they went to the Reish Gilusa on Yom Tov and Rashi states it was to fulfill the mitzva of going to a Rebbe on Yom Tov. The Beis Hamikdosh had already been destroyed by then and nevertheless they went.

My brother, Reb Ben, cited a Maharitz Chayos (which I have not been able to locate as of yet) that quotes a Midrash that states explicitly that they fulfilled this mitzva even after the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed.

The Gemara states that Rabbi Yitzchak said that one is obligated to visit his teacher during the festival. This is derived from the verse that states why are you going to him today? It is neither a New Moon nor a Shabbos! This verse was said regarding the woman from Shuneim, who Elisha had blessed with a child and then the child became ill and died. When the woman told her husband that she was returning to Elisha to inform him of the child’s demise, her husband, unaware of what had occurred, inquired why she was going to Elisha. The Gemara states that the verse implies that on the New Moon and on Shabbos one is obligated to visit his teacher. It would seem that the reason for this obligation is because the Zohar states that a Torah scholar is in the category of Shabbos. If one wishes to truly experience the Shabbos, he should visit his teacher on the Shabbos. The Arizal writes that the essential obligation of one visiting his teacher is on Shabbos, because that is when a person has a neshama yeseira, an extra soul, for the whole Shabbos.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Rabbi Yochanan asked from Rabbi Yanai as when the New Year of an esrog. His response was that it is in Shevat. Rabbi Yochanan questioned further if he was referring to Shevat of the lunar months or of the solar season. Rabbi Yanai responded that he was referring to Shevat of the lunar months. The Gemora continues that Shevat is the New Year for the esrog (and all trees) even in a leap year when the budding of the fruits are delayed (since the lunar year is behind the solar year).

The Gemora’s conclusion requires further explanation. The New Year for trees should depend on Shevat of the solar year since by then, most of the winter season has passed. Why is Shevat of the lunar months the determining time for the New Year?

Tosfos states that the moon also affects the growing and the ripening of the fruits. He proves this from a verse in Devarim. Tosfos adds that the Jewish year follows the lunar cycle.

The Chasam Sofer (O”C 14) is bothered by Tosfos’ additional statement. Why should the Jewish year affect the ripening of the fruits?

There is a Gemora which is quoted l'halacha which supports the idea that the decision of Beis Din can affect reality. The Gemara in Nidda 45a states that a girl under three years old who loses her virginity, the virginity (hymen) will grow back. The Yerushalmi (Kesubos 1:2) comments that even if when she had relations she was over three years old but then the Beis Din made a leap year which in doing so made her at the time that she had relations under three years old, it will grow back. The Yerushalmi bases this on a pasuk in Tehilim. The Pnei Moshe explains the Yerushalmi and states: אף הטבע מסכמת עליהן. Even nature agress with the psak. This is explicit that the decision changes reality. Before Beis Din declared a leap year her virginity would not have grown back, now that they declared a leap year it will grow back. This Yerushalmi is quoted l'halacha in the Rama (E”H 20:1) as well as by the Acharonim (O”C 55:9) (relating to a boy who becomes Bar Mitzva in a leap year. We see clearly that the Beis Din declaring a leap year changes reality. If they hadn't she would not be a virgin (the hymen would not grow back), since they did she is a virgin (it does grow back).

One of the commentators on the Yerushalmi (Kesubos 1:2) brings another example that Beis Din’s decision can affect reality from the Tosefta in Rosh Hashana (1:10). The Tosefta assumes that the manna did not fall on Yom Tov. The Tosefta says that how long the manna fell on erev Rosh Hashana lasted depended on the decision of Beis Din. If Beis Din made the 30th Rosh Hashana, then the manna lasted two days (the 29th and Rosh Hashana). However, if Beis Din made Rosh Hashana on the 31st, then the manna had to last a third day (29,30 because it didn't fall because it could have been Yom Tov, and Rosh Hashana). Again, we see that the decision of Beis Din affected the reality of when the manna rotted away. (Jewish Worker)

The Chasam Sofer states further that the laws of nature are subject to the Torah. Since the sap in the tree which causes the fruits to ripen has relevance to many halachos in the Torah, the laws of nature become secondary to the Torah rules and the fruits ripen in Shevat of the lunar months.

Rashi cites a drasha from the Mechilta explaining why something that has the sanctity of Shemitah is exempt from the obligation of maaser.

Turei Even asks on the necessity for a special drasha pertaining to Shemitah when we already have a drasha that anything which is hefker (ownerless) is exempt from the obligation of maaser.

Maharit (43) answers that this would be a proof to the viewpoint of his father, the Mabit, who holds that the reason anything with the sanctity of Shemitah is deemed ownerless is not because the owner made his entire field hefker (which is the Beis Yosef’s opinion), but rather due to the decree from the Torah. The Steipler explains that something which is halachicly ownerless and the owner prevents others from acquiring them is not the hefker that is exempt from maaser. There is a special drasha by Shemitah that even if the owner does not want his produce to be hefker, it is nonetheless exempt from maaser.

The Turei Even himself answers that there is a dispute in the Yerushalmi regarding one who is mafkir (render ownerless) his produce to any Jew but not to a gentile, if that is considered hefker to be exempt from maaser. Produce that grows during Shemitah is hefker only to a Yisroel and according to Rish Lakish would not be considered hefker. This is why there is a special drasha stating that the produce of Shemitah is exempt from the obligation of maaser.

The Reshash asks on the Turei Even and states that the two cases are not comparable. In the Yerushalmi’s case, the hefker is not a hefker since he did not render ownerless to everyone and that is why Rish Lakish maintains that it is not hefker to become exempt from maaser. However regarding Shemitah, everyone would agree that the produce is hefker even if it will be only for a Jew and not for a gentile.

The Steipler answers that there would be a difference in the following case: A fruit that began to grow in the sixth year but did not grow a third until the seventh year. If something that grows during Shemitah becomes ownerless because it grew in the seventh year (and not because of its sanctity), perhaps we can say that only the portion of the fruit that grew in the seventh year is ownerless and therefore exempt from maaser, however the part that grew in the sixth year would be subject to the obligation of maaser. We have the special drasha by Shemitah teaching us that any produce that has the sanctity of Shemitah on it will be exempt from the maaser obligations.

Rabban Gamliel had stated that an esrog has the status of a vegetable in regards to maaser that it’s year is assigned to it based on when it was picked. Rabbah bar Rav Huna states that accordingly, the New Year for the esrog should be on the first of Tishrei, just like vegetables.

The Gemora questions this from a braisa which states that if one picked esrogim prior to sunset on the fifteenth of Shevat and picked other esrogim after sunset, he may not separate terumah and maaser from one lot for the other since they are considered to be from two different years. If this would have occurred in the third year of the Shemitah cycle heading into the fourth year, the halacha would be that the first batch would be subject to the obligations of maaser rishon and maaser oni and the second batch would be considered from the fourth year and would be subject to the obligations of maaser rishon and maaser sheini. This braisa explicitly holds that the defining stage for an esrog is when it is picked, which is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel and nevertheless, the New Year is the fifteenth of Shevat and not the first of Tishrei.

Rabbah bar Rav Huna retracts and concedes that Rabban Gamliel maintains that even though the determining stage of an esrog is the time it is picked similar to vegetables, in regards to the New Year it is like all other trees and the New Year is the first of Tishrei. (14b – 15a)SHEVAT IS THE NEW YEAR

Rabbi Yochanan asked from Rabbi Yanai as when the New Year of an esrog. His response was that it is in Shevat. Rabbi Yochanan questioned further if he was referring to Shevat of the lunar months or of the solar season. Rabbi Yanai responded that he was referring to Shevat of the lunar months. The Gemora continues that Shevat is the New Year for the esrog (and all trees) even in a leap year when the budding of the fruits are delayed (since the lunar year is behind the solar year). (15a)SIXTH INTO THE SEVENTH

Rabbah states that an esrog which grew in the sixth year and was picked in the seventh year is exempt from masser and does not have the sanctity of Shemitah. An esrog which grew in the seventh year and was picked in the eighth year is exempt from maaser but does have the sanctity of Shemitah.

Abaye explains the second case by stating that Rabbah is uncertain whether an esrog’s Shemitah status is dependent on the growth of the esrog or the picking. Since Shemitah is a Biblical halacha, he ruled stringently and the esrog receives Shemitah sanctity. One of the laws of Shemitah is that the produce becomes ownerless and the halacha is that hefker (something which is ownerless) is exempt from maaser.

Abaye questions Rabbah’s first case. If he rules that the esrog does not have Shemitah sanctity, it is evident the esrog’s Shemitah status is determined by the growth of the esrog and that occurred in the sixth year; why then is the esrog exempt from maaser?

Rabbah answers that the esrog is viewed as being ownerless (not due to Shemitah) since the owner must leave his fields available for everyone to enter and the esrogim are constantly being touched.

Rav Hamnuna disagrees with Rabbah and rules regarding an esrog which grew in the sixth year and was picked in the seventh year that it does not have the sanctity of Shemitah; however it is subject to the laws of maaser.

The Gemora cites a braisa challenging both Rabbah and Rav Hamnuna’s rulings. The braisa rules regarding an esrog which grew in the sixth year and was picked in the seventh year that it is exempt from masser and does not have the sanctity of Shemitah. The braisa elaborates that in order for a fruit to be subject to the laws of maaser it must grow and be picked in the sixth year. This ruling is against Rav Hamnuna.

The braisa continues and rules regarding an esrog which grew in the seventh year and was picked in the eighth year that it is exempt from maaser and does have the sanctity of Shemitah. The braisa explains that in order for fruit to be subject to the laws of Shemitah it must grow and be picked in the seventh year. This ruling is against Rabbah.

The Gemora answers that there is a Tanna that Rabbah and Rav Hamnuna rely on as basis for their ruling. Avtolmos testified in the name of elders that an esrog’s Shemitah status is determined solely by the time of its growth and not when it is picked. Therefore an esrog which grew in the sixth year and was picked in the seventh year does not have the sanctity of Shemitah and an esrog which grows in the seventh year does have Shemitah sanctity even if it is not picked until the eighth year. (15a – 15b)

A braisa is cited where the Sages learned that trees whose fruits grew prior to the fifteenth of Shevat are subject to the laws of maaser according to the previous year. If they grew after the fifteenth of Shevat, they go according to the next year.

Rabbi Nechemya qualifies this ruling as referring to fruits that do not ripen all at once but rather over a period of time. If however, they all ripen at once like carobs and olives, they are subject to the laws of maaser according to the upcoming year (when they are picked) even if the fruits grew before the fifteenth of Shevat.

Rabbi Yochanan said over that it became customary for people to follow Rabbi Nechemya’s viewpoint regarding carobs and they are assigned to the year in which they are picked.

Rish Lakish questioned Rabbi Yochanan from a Mishna which rules regarding fruit that ripen at once, nonetheless, they are accorded Shemitah sanctity based on when they grew and not on when they were picked. Rabbi Yochanan was quiet and did not respond.

The Gemora questions Rabbi Yochanan’s reasoning for remaining silent. Perhaps the ruling is like the Mishna and nevertheless the people embraced the custom of Rabbi Nechemya.

The Gemora explains that this is not a possibility because Rabbi Yochanan could not have allowed them to continue this custom when it is not consistent with the halacha.

The Gemora answers that Rabbi Yochanan was discussing separating maaser from carobs which is only a Rabbinic obligation and that is why the Sages did not protest against those who followed Rabbi Nechemya’s ruling of taking the maaser according to the year in which they were picked. The Mishna is referring to the halachos of Shemitah, which are Biblical and therefore its Shemitah year is determined by the year in which it grew.

Reb Abba Hakohen concluded that he was uncertain if Rabbi Yochanan accepted this distinction or not. (15a – 15b)

Monday, December 18, 2006

The Gemora cites an incident with Rabbi Akiva that he picked esrogim from a tree on the first of Shevat. He separated maaser sheini as if it was the second year of the Shemitah cycle and he also separated maaser oni as if it was the third year of the Shemitah cycle.

Rabbi Akiva was being strict regarding the halachos of separating maaser from the fruits of the tree. The commentators ask that separating maaser from fruits is only Rabbinic and the principle is that when there is a doubt on a Rabbinic law, one has a right to be lenient. Why did Rabbi Akiva choose to be strict?

The Shaar Hamelech in Hilchos Mikvaos cites Tosfos in Bava Kamma and based on Tosfos explains our Gemora. When there are two Rabbinic doubts that contradict each other, one cannot rule leniently on just one of them since who says that this is the correct one. We cannot rule leniently on both of them since they contradict one another. We are therefore compelled to rule stringently on both of them. It is because of this reasoning that Rabbi Akiva separated maaser for both years.

The Gemora cites an incident with Rabbi Akiva that he picked esrogim from a tree on the first of Shevat. He separated maaser sheini as if it was the second year of the Shemitah cycle and he also separated maaser oni as if it was the third year of the Shemitah cycle.

The Turei even asks from the principle of whenever there is a doubt regarding monetary matters, the halacha is that one can be lenient. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to take the money from his fellow. What compelled Rabbi Akiva to give the maaser oni when he could have told the poor people that they should bring a proof that the esrogim are from the third year and only then would he be required to give them?

Mikdash Dovid (58) cites a Gemora in Kiddushin that Rabbi Akiva was the attendant for the poor and therefore his hand was viewed as being an extension of the poor and therefore the burden of proof was on Rabbi Akiva and not on the poor people.

The Gemora proceeds to provide Scriptural proof that the assignment for vegetables pertaining to maaser will depend on when they are picked. Rabbi Yosi Haglili learns that the verse states that grain and grapes grow from the previous year’s water and their maaser belongs to last year, providing that they grew a third of their growth before the first of Tishrei. Vegetables do not require the water from last year and will grow from this year’s water; therefore their maaser status will depend on when they are picked. Rabbi Akiva understands the distinction between fruits and vegetables in the following way: Fruits grow from last year’s rain water but vegetables can grow through irrigation and therefore are not comparable to fruits.

Rabbi Avahu states that the difference between the two opinions would be regarding Egyptian beans and small onions that water was withdrawn from them thirty days prior to Rosh Hashanah. (14a)...Read more

FRUITS AND ESROGIM

The first day of Shevat is the New Year for the trees according to Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel maintains that it is on the fifteenth. The Gemora explains the reasoning for this. Since most of the rainy season has passed by this time and the fruits of the trees are ready to come out.

The Gemora cites an incident with Rabbi Akiva that he picked esrogim from a tree on the first of Shevat. He separated maaser sheini as if it was the second year of the Shemitah cycle and he also separated maaser oni as if it was the third year of the Shemitah cycle. He took the maaser sheini in accordance with Beis Hillel who maintain that the New Year for trees is the fifteenth of Shevat and he took maaser oni in accordance with Beis Shamai who holds that the New Year for trees is the first day of Shevat.

Rabbi Yosi understood the reason of Rabbi Akiva differently. There is a dispute between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer if an esrog has the laws of a tree in regards to maaser and therefore it’s year would depend on when the esrog emerges or does it have the laws of a vegetable and it would depend on when it was picked. Rabbi Akiva was concerned for both opinions and gave maaser sheini as if it was a fruit and maaser oni as if it was a vegetable. (14a – 14b)

CONTRADICTORY STRINGENCIES

The Gemora questions the first view in understanding Rabbi Akiva that he took both maasros, one according to Beis Shamai and one according to Beis Hillel from a braisa which states that one who follows the stringencies of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is considered a fool. The esrogim should either be regarded as being from the second year in accordance with Beis Hillel or the third year like Beis Shamai but it cannot be both.

The Gemora answers that Rabbi Akiva ruled in accordance with Beis Hillel, however he was uncertain if Beis Hillel stated that the New Year for the trees is the first of Shevat or the fifteenth and that is why he separated both maasros. (14b)

BEIS SHAMAI OR BEIS HILLEL?

The Gemora asks on the interpretation of the incident involving Rabbi Akiva according to Rabbi Yosi. If the esrogim were picked on the first of Shevat, they should still be regarded as being from the second year according to Beis Hillel who maintains that the New Year begins on the fifteenth of Shevat. It would seem that Rabbi Akiva is going in accordance with Beis Shamai’s opinion which is what Rabbi Yosi clearly desires to avoid.

Rabbi Chanina answers that we are referring to esrogim that blossomed prior to the fifteenth of Shevat of the previous year.

Ravina answers that we must emend the language of the Gemora to state that Rabbi Akiva picked the esrogim on the fifteenth of Shevat and not on the first. (14b)

Rav Kahana was asked by his contemporaries regarding the korban omer that the Jews brought when they entered Eretz Yisroel. They inquired of him as to where did the barley come from for this korban. It could not have been grown by a non-Jew for the Torah states that it should be from “your harvest.” The Gemora proves that the korban omer was brought that year from the verses in Yehoshua which state that the Jews ate from the new grain only on the day after Pesach began. It is evident that they originally did not eat because the korban was not brought and it was only on the second day of Pesach, which is the day the korban omer is brought that they began to eat from the new grain.

Tosfos wonders as to how they ate matzah on the first night of Pesach that year. The new grain only became permitted on the second day of Pesach. Tosfos answers that the gentile merchants sold them grain which did not have this prohibition.

The Mekor Chaim brings a proof from this Tosfos to the opinions that hold that one can fulfill the mitzva of eating matzah even if the grain was not watched from the time of the harvesting since here the gentiles did the harvesting and afterwards sold the grain to the Jews. It is ruled in halacha that in extraordinary situations, one can buy flour from the market place and use it to bake matzah with.

Rav Kahana was asked by his contemporaries regarding the korban omer that the Jews brought when they entered Eretz Yisroel. They inquired of him as to where did the barley come from for this korban. It could not have been grown by a non-Jew for the Torah states that it should be from “your harvest.” The Gemora proves that the korban omer was brought that year from the verses in Yehoshua which state that the Jews ate from the new grain only on the day after Pesach began. It is evident that they originally did not eat because the korban was not brought and it was only on the second day of Pesach, which is the day the korban omer is brought that they began to eat from the new grain.

The Turei Even asks from the Gemora in Chulin 17a which states that during the seven years that the Jews were capturing Eretz Yisroel, they were even permitted to eat pig. Why could they not eat from the new grain as well, even without the offering of the korban omer?

One of the answers that are offered by the Acharonim is that only prohibitions that will not become permitted later were they allowed eating then. The new grain would become permitted with the bringing of the korban omer and therefore before the korban, it could not be eaten.

The Ohr Chodosh answers that only eating prohibitions were permitted then; For one to eat from the new grain, one would be required to harvest it first and that is also not allowed before the korban omer is brought. The prohibition of harvesting before the omer was not permitted at that time.

A very nice post from Reb Aryeh Lebowitz pertaining to the daf and to Chanukah (you can find many insightful and in depth discussions here on the daf ).

The gemara questions how the Jews were able to bring the korban omer when they first arrived in Eretz Yisroel. The Ran (in the chidushei haran) wonders why they couldn't have brought their own grain from the other side of the yardein, which would be kasher l'omer b'dieved. The Ran answers that even though something may be kasher b'dieved, the very first time you do something cannot be in a b'dieved fashion. Rav Yosef Engel (gilyonei hashas to Shabbos 21b as expounded by Rav Yonasan Sacks shlit"a) extends this idea as follows: the torah in Parshiyos Terumah/Tetzaveh tells us about the mitzvah of constructing the mishkan and its various keilim. It also mentions, along with each k'li, what that k'li was used for (the mitzvah of avoda associated with it). The gemara Sanhedrin daf 17 understands that while Moshe was able to consecrate keilim with the shemen hamishcha, once we no longer have the shemen hamishcha the avoda of the kli is what gives it its kedusha and allows it to be used in avoda. Essentially, the torah tells us of the avoda together with the construction because the completion of the "construction" may be the very first avoda one does with that kli. This is why the torah only mentions the korban tamid when it talks about the avoda of the mizbeach even though there are so many other korbanos for which the mizbeach is used (because the focus is not on what it is used for but on what its first use is for because it derives its kedusha and is only complete after the first use. The idea is that the beginning of everything sets the tone and must be on the highest level. The first use of each kli paves the way for every subsequent use and therefore is viewed with extra scrutiny. With this Rav Yosef Engel explains the necessity for the neis shemen on chanukah in light of tumah hutrah/dechuya betzibur. It may be okay to have the oil tamei for lighting the menorah, but it is not okay to have tamei oil for the chanukas hamenorah which is meant to set the tone for each subsequent lighting. This is why the ba'alei hatosafos on the torah explain "bi'krovai ekadeish" that on the day a kohein hedyot starts his avoda he can't become tamei even to kerovim, because the beginning and chinuch of his avoda must be b'tahara.

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Massros which states that fenugreek, which is a certain type of spice, is subject to the obligation of tithing when it develops seeds. One is obligated to separate maaser from grains and olives after they have grown one third of their eventual growth.

Rav Assi offers proof to this from a verse in Exodus and he explains that the Sages ascertained that any produce which has fully grown and is set to be harvested by Sukkos, it certainly grew to a third of its eventual growth by Rosh Hashanah. The Torah refers to such produce as “the end of the year,” indicating that produce which grows a third before Rosh Hashanah is considered to be produce from the previous year.

Reb Zeira explained to Rabbi Yirmiyah that the Sages established a measurement and they are all issued precisely. Produce which did not grow a third prior to Rosh Hashanah cannot be fully grown by Sukkos. There are other examples of precise measurements. One can immerse himself in a mikvah that consists of forty se’ah, but a kortov (an extremely small measurement equal to 1/64 of a log) less will invalidate the mikvah. Food the size of an egg is capable of transmitting tumah but if the food is a drop less than an egg (even in the size of a sesame seed), it cannot transmit tumah. (12b – 13a)...Read moreTHE FIRST KORBAN OMER

Rabbi Yirmiyah accepted Reb Zeira’s explanation and he proved it by quoting a discussion between Rav Kahana and his contemporaries.

Rav Kahana was asked by his contemporaries regarding the korban omer that the Jews brought when they entered Eretz Yisroel. They inquired of him as to where did the barley come from for this korban. It could not have been grown by a non-Jew for the Torah states that it should be from “your harvest.” The Gemora proves that the korban omer was brought that year from the verses in Yehoshua which state that the Jews ate from the new grain only on the day after Pesach began. It is evident that they originally did not eat because the korban was not brought and it was only on the second day of Pesach, which is the day the korban omer is brought that they began to eat from the new grain.

Rav Kahana answered them that they used the barley which did not grow a third while it was owned by the non-Jew. Since the barley reached a third of its growth in the possession of the Jew, it is regarded as “your harvest” and can be used for the korban omer.

Rabbi Yirmiyah commented that it is evident from Rav Kahana’s response that the Sages were accurately able to determine if the produce grew a third or if it was less than a third.

The Gemora concludes that it is possible for barley in Eretz Yisroel to be unripe and in a span of five days can become completely ripe. This is because Eretz Yisroel is referred to as “the land of the deer,” whose produce can ripen much faster than regular. (13a)

A MIXTURE OF BEANS

The Gemora cites a Mishna in Shevi’is which states that rice, millet, poppy and sesame that took root prior to Rosh Hashanah are regarded as being from the previous year pertaining to the laws of maaser and Shemitah.

Rabbah challenged the ruling of this Mishna from the words of the Sages. They stated that fruits from trees that emerge before the fifteenth of Shevat are considered as being from the previous year. Grain and olives are regarded as being from this year if they grow a third before the fifteenth of Shevat. Vegetables are decided by the year in which they are picked. Why did the Mishna in Shevi’is decide that there are certain foods that are assigned to be from the new year based on when they took root?

Rabbah answered that the beans are harvested a few at a time and therefore they cannot be assigned a year based on the time of picking like other vegetables. The Sages did not want one harvest to be divided in its halachos. It was decided to assign them a year based on when they took root since the entire harvest will have one halacha.

Abaye questions this reason by citing the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. A ruling was issued regarding Egyptian beans that were planted for seeds and some of them took root before Rosh Hashanah and others took root after Rosh Hashanah. One cannot separate terumah and maaser from one onto the other since they are from different years. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri maintains that one can mix all the beans together and separate terumah and maaser from this mixture. Abaye asks that the same can be done with the beans that are harvested in different years.

Rabbah answers that it is only Rabbi Shimon Shezuri who holds that this option is available because he holds of the principle called “yesh bilah,” meaning that we can assume after the mixing that the beans from the different years are evenly distributed amongst each other. That is why he permits separating terumah and maaser from the mixture. However, the Chachamim do not subscribe to this principle and they assume that the beans will not be evenly distributed in the mixture and when one will separate terumah and maaser, he will be taking from one year onto the other. (13b)

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Towards the end of today’s daf (12), it says that if one makes a vow “for a year”, that it lasts for 12 months from the time it was said. This is to contrast it to saying ‘for the year’, which is until Rosh Hashanah. When it says ’12 months’, does it mean it literally, or does it mean a year? In other words, if a person makes a vow on the first of Kislev “for a year”, but the year is a leap year, does the vow end on the first of Kislev the following year or the first of Mar-Chesvan the following year?

Answer: The Ritva states that if one takes an oath during a leap year and he states “for a year,” the vow will have effect for twelve months. However, if he would state “for this year,” then the vow will have effect the entire year, including the extra month.

There are many different opinions regarding the types of produce that is subject to the Biblical obligation of maaser and which is only Rabbinic. Here is a partial list of some of these viewpoints.

Rashi and Tosfos maintain that grains, grapes and olives have a Biblical maaser obligation and all other fruits are only Rabbinically obligated.

The Ramban holds that even grapes and olives are not subject to the Biblical obligation of maaser. One would be required Biblically to separate maaser from oil and wine. Reshash on 15b questions this viewpoint from a Mishna in Terumos which states that one can separate terumah from oil onto olives and according to the Ramban, this should not be allowed since oil has a Biblical obligation and olives do not.

The Raavad’s opinion is that all of the seven types of produce which Eretz Yisroel is praised by are included in the Biblical obligation.

Ritva maintains that the distinction between grains, olives and grapes applies only to maaser sheini, however regarding all other tithings, all fruits from a tree are included in the Biblical obligation.

The Smag seems to hold that one is Biblically obligated to separate maaser sheini from vegetables. This opinion is challenged from many different Gemoros.

The Gemora shows how the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua pertaining to which month the world was created in is the foundation for a different argument between them.

Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the Flood began on the seventeenth of Iyar, a day on which the constellation Kimah (a small constellation which can be found in the tail of the Lamb) sets during the daytime. Even though this happened in the early summer, a time where the bottomless springs become used up (and there is no rain to refill them); since the people of that generation were corrupted, Hashem changed the normal nature of Creation and brought the constellation Kimah up during the daytime. He took two stars from it and brought the Flood to the world....Read more

THE GREAT FLOOD

The Gemora shows how the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua pertaining to which month the world was created in is the foundation for a different argument between them.

Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the Flood began on the seventeenth of Iyar, a day on which the constellation Kimah (a small constellation which can be found in the tail of the Lamb) sets during the daytime. Even though this happened in the early summer, a time where the bottomless springs become used up (and there is no rain to refill them); since the people of that generation were corrupted, Hashem changed the normal nature of Creation and brought the constellation Kimah up during the daytime. He took two stars from it and brought the Flood to the world.

Rabbi Eliezer holds that the Flood began on the seventeenth of Mar-Cheshvan, a day on which the constellation Kimah rises during the daytime, a time where the bottomless springs increase due to the rain; since the people of that generation were corrupted, Hashem changed the normal nature of Creation and brought the constellation Kimah up during the daytime. He took two stars from it and brought the Flood to the world.

The above argument is based on their respective viewpoints regarding the month in which the world was created. Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the world was created in Tishrei, holds that the Flood began in Mar-Cheshvan and Rabbi Yehoshua, who maintains that the world was created in Nissan, maintains that the Flood began in Iyar.

The Gemora challenges Rabbi Eliezer’s assertion that Hashem changed the normal nature of Creation by bringing Kimah up during the daytime. If it was in the month of Mar-Cheshvan, Kimah is always on the rise during the day? The Gemora answers that these waters were usually cold and Hashem changed it to be boiling hot due to the generation’s corrupt sins regarding immorality.

The Gemora cites a braisa that the Chachamim reckon the years of man and the generations from Tishrei in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer even though they hold that the world was created in Nissan, like Rabbi Yehoshua. They obviously maintain that the seasons are counted from Nissan since that is when the world was created. The wise men from the nations of the world reckon even the years of man from Nissan. (11b – 12a)

VEGETABLE TITHING

The Mishna stated that the first of Tishrei is considered the New Year for vegetable tithing. The Gemora cites a braisa which states that there are two types of tithing. There is the Biblical obligation of grain tithing and the Rabbinical tithing of vegetables. Both of them begin their New Year on Tishrei. (12a)

The Gemora explains the significance of the New Year for the vegetables. If one vegetable was picked before Rosh Hashanah and one afterwards, you cannot take terumah or maaser from one onto the other since they are from two different years. If this occurred at the end of the second year of the Shemitah cycle, the first vegetables would have the obligations of maaser rishon and maaser sheini and the vegetables picked after Rosh Hashanah will be subject to the obligations of maaser rishon and maaser oni. (12b)

The Gemora cites Scriptural verses proving that the obligation of maaser rishon (Given to the levi) applies each of the six years during the Shemitah cycle and that maaser sheini does not apply in the third and the sixth year. (12b)

VOWS

The Gemora cites the braisa which states that the first of Tishrei is considered the New Year in regards to vows. If one takes an oath that he will not derive any pleasure from his friend for a year, the halacha is that he must count twelve months from day to day until he is permitted to derive benefit from him. However, if he stated in his oath “for this year,” then even if the day of the vow was the twenty-ninth of Elul, his vow ends on the first of Tishrei. Even though, we have learned previously that there are those that maintain that one day in a year is not considered a year, by a vow it is different. Since the intent of the vow is to cause himself discomfort, this is accomplished even with one day. (12b)

Learn Gemara Brochos in Depth - Listen and Download Audio Shiurim

Let us help you learn the Daf

Daf Archive

Daf Archive will have the listings of every post, according to the Mesechta and the Daf.
Just click below and you will be directed to Daf Notes - Yevamos. There, you can click on whichever Daf that interests you.

Daf Notes Discussion

Daf Notes Discussion will be posting comments from guest bloggers who will submit Divrei Torah on the weekly Parsha and other timely topics.Just click below on whatever interests you.Daf Notes Discussion